Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with chapters? That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from their perspective, so recentralising fundraising. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Having followed the recent discussions from the sidelines (and speaking as a longtime volunteer), I found the various appeals to principles such as decentralization and subsidiarity somewhat abstract. Of course BirgitteSB is absolutely correct in that there is a strong consensus that content curation on Wikimedia projects should be a decentralized activity. However, the websites where all these global volunteers scroll through these recent changes are hosted by one central entity, which also concentrates the legal responsibilities that this entails. And there seems to be an equally strong consensus that such a centralized solution is best for this particular problem. It would seem that most other movement activities fall somewhat inbetween these two extremes. Alos, let's not forget that chapters themselves can be perceived as a means to centralize and professionalize certain activities in a country or region. 2011/8/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with chapters? That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from their perspective, so recentralising fundraising. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Aug 8, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:39 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: Decentralization isn't some random choice that somehow was attached to this movement; it is the only way the program functions at all. WMF professionals can't begin to account for the program work being accomplished by the movement. Has there been a recent push to catalog local train stations on the Albanian Wikipedia or is the current trend of work translating articles from a larger Wikipedia? No one knows what is actually going on in all wikis. Only that something goes on. But why does it go on? Because all these people, who could never dream of all being able to speak to one another any more than they could stand to live in one another's cultures, all get a chance to comfortably make their mark on something that seems to matter. And they feel rightfully that this makes them a stakeholder in something that matters and perhaps also feel a little more securely about how much they themselves matter. Recent changes doesn't move because of the Wikipedia brand, nor because of how professional WMF is run, nor because someone that has no understanding of how the program work of Wikimedia is accomplished feels that a description of WMF operations fails his gut check. Recent changes moves because individuals feel empowered by Wikimedia websites. Recent changes moves entirely based of human feelings of worth and power and changing those feelings can make it move faster or slower. And there is one overarching reason people click on the banners to donate $, and that is because they believe donating will keep website live and recent changes moving. Everything WMF does, should be checked against how it either helps or hinders that. And it impossible to both centralize and empower disparate people at the same time. This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with chapters? Just about everything that makes Wikimedia projects what they are can and does take place irrespective of the existence of a formal, legal organization in a particular jurisdiction. Our putative Albanian contributors do not wonder, as they write their train station articles, whether there exists within the borders of Albania a legally instituted non-profit organization acting in support of Wikimedia principles; they see themselves as participants in an online project, not agents of a local charity. Nor does off-wiki collaboration require that a formal entity be in existence. Off-wiki activities -- whether social meetups or more formal outreach efforts to GLAM institutions and elsewhere -- are no less effective for being organized by loose groups of interested participants. So long as there is no need to handle substantial funds -- and how much of Wikimedia contributors' typical work requires such? -- the lack of a legally constituted organization matters little. But to take this one step further, let us assume -- for the sake of argument -- that the activities of the contributor community _do_ require the existence of a dedicated legal entity in a particular jurisdiction. One could, potentially, construct a scenario where this is the case; for example, someone wishes to donate a set of copyrighted works, and prefers that an organization subject to local laws be responsible for handling the process. Even in this case, however, there is no requirement that the legal entity be a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation -- or, to be more precise, that the entity have in place a particular sort of trademark usage agreement with the WMF. I can think of no conceivable need that could be filled by a local entity holding rights to (non-commercial!) use of Wikimedia trademarks but could not be filled just as well by a local entity identical in every way save for the lack of such access to said trademarks. This is not to say that there aren't very good reasons for having these trademark agreements in place, of course; but the reasons have more to do with effective brand marketing than with any _need_ on anyone's part. You are right that this decentralization doesn't neccessarily have to be anything like chapters. But chapters happened for whatever reason and no-one is trying to be rid of them. The validity of the argument that chapters aren't aboslutely needed, doesn't make it any better of an idea to keep them around and infantalize and insult them. Imagine how these events will sound as they are be spread through all the people working in RC who might hear of them. By the natural urge to fit it into a story and the unavoidable half-understanding of passing language barriers; it becomes a plank in the narrative of WMF as Imperialism. And that is the sort of story that if built up completely will have a real negative effect on RC. Funding chapters by grants from WMF so that they all use the money
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:43 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: You are right that this decentralization doesn't neccessarily have to be anything like chapters. But chapters happened for whatever reason and no-one is trying to be rid of them. The validity of the argument that chapters aren't aboslutely needed, doesn't make it any better of an idea to keep them around and infantalize and insult them. Imagine how these events will sound as they are be spread through all the people working in RC who might hear of them. By the natural urge to fit it into a story and the unavoidable half-understanding of passing language barriers; it becomes a plank in the narrative of WMF as Imperialism. And that is the sort of story that if built up completely will have a real negative effect on RC. In other words, this could be harmful to the movement if spun in a particular way? There's nothing new there; just about anything the WMF does _could_ be given a negative spin. I don't think that this possibilityshould in and of itself be a convincing reason to not do something. Funding chapters by grants from WMF so that they all use the money in the same WMF approved way is a systematically bad idea in the same way sending shoes to Africa is a bad idea. Redefining the chapters who participated in a joint fundraiser with WMF as WMF's payment processors is straight-up insulting. Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor. A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would give a chapter the right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF. But what chapters seem to want is for the WMF to sign over the trademarks they need to do their own fundraising, and then simply hand over a portion of the WMF's own revenue on top of that. It's a convenient arrangement for the chapters involved, to be sure, and apparently one that the WMF was not particularly unwilling to follow; but there's nothing particularly normal or fair about it. Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything that does not maximize donations is laughable. The obvious solution to the stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually undesirable and should not be pursued. I don't see the concern as either unstated or undesirable. Why shouldn't the WMF lead the movement? Or, to put it another way, why should the WMF cede its leadership role to an amorphous collective of chapters, which -- unlike the WMF -- has no clear leadership, may or may not enjoy a suitable level of organizational maturity, and is subject to a hodgepodge of local legal systems which may or may not be friendly to the Wikimedia mission? The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent right to lead the movement. We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't. Kirill ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:43 AM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: Funding chapters by grants from WMF so that they all use the money in the same WMF approved way is a systematically bad idea in the same way sending shoes to Africa is a bad idea. Redefining the chapters who participated in a joint fundraiser with WMF as WMF's payment processors is straight-up insulting. Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything that does not maximize donations is laughable. The obvious solution to the stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually undesirable and should not be pursued. The WMF has a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that funding it channels to other organizations is not being wasted or misused. The appropriate way to do that is to affiliate and direct funds only to organizations with acceptable financial controls and public reporting. I think the tax deduction and post-summit timing issues of the recent letter can be debated, and have been, but it's just simple fact that the WMF controls the funding stream and thus shares responsibility for how the funding is used - not to mention any misuse of funds by a chapter using Wikimedia marks would reflect back on the Foundation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 3:43 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: Redefining the chapters who participated in a joint fundraiser with WMF as WMF's payment processors is straight-up insulting. Just on this particular point. I thought the same, but after a round of explanations, I now understand the term better. Payment processors does not apply to _just_ the chapters, it applies to the Foundation as well. The definition behind this is _anyone_ who actually processes donations directly and has the administration to back it up. Cheers, Delphine Wikimedia Deutschland ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. While Foundation staff has provided an invaluable support to make the fundraiser a success, it probably wouldn't have been such a success hadn't there been dozens of volunteers, among which _many_ chapter board members and simple members who spent uncounted hours of localizing and adapting messages, providing stories, refining landing pages, answering donors questions etc. You may want to look at the fundraising pages on meta to see the level of involvement of the community as a whole in making it a success, and even that does not give a real idea of how much chapters' communities have participated (much happens on their chapters' mailing lists for example). Cheers, Delphine ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
2011/8/9 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. While Foundation staff has provided an invaluable support to make the fundraiser a success, it probably wouldn't have been such a success hadn't there been dozens of volunteers, among which _many_ chapter board members and simple members who spent uncounted hours of localizing and adapting messages, providing stories, refining landing pages, answering donors questions etc. You may want to look at the fundraising pages on meta to see the level of involvement of the community as a whole in making it a success, and even that does not give a real idea of how much chapters' communities have participated (much happens on their chapters' mailing lists for example). I'm not suggesting that the success of the fundraiser isn't due in large part to broad community involvement; my assertion is that this community involvement would take place whether or not a formal chapter was involved. I would assume that the volunteers who contributed to the effort presumably did so because they believed in the goals of the project and the need to raise funds to support them, not because their particular chapter stood to collect a large sum of money in the process? Kirill ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. While Foundation staff has provided an invaluable support to make the fundraiser a success, it probably wouldn't have been such a success hadn't there been dozens of volunteers, among which _many_ chapter board members and simple members who spent uncounted hours of localizing and adapting messages, providing stories, refining landing pages, answering donors questions etc. You may want to look at the fundraising pages on meta to see the level of involvement of the community as a whole in making it a success, and even that does not give a real idea of how much chapters' communities have participated (much happens on their chapters' mailing lists for example). Delphine, do you mean the above applies to ALL chapters? I would doubt it. Without giving names, I am not involved with any chapters at all, but what I hear of some of them is indeed a lot of useful activity including fundraising, project proposals etc, whereas I only hear of others when they get involved into some quarrels or controversies. May be this is then not so much of a misinterpretation. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not suggesting that the success of the fundraiser isn't due in large part to broad community involvement; my assertion is that this community involvement would take place whether or not a formal chapter was involved. I would assume that the volunteers who contributed to the effort presumably did so because they believed in the goals of the project and the need to raise funds to support them, not because their particular chapter stood to collect a large sum of money in the process? I think it differs depending on the chapter, the culture et al. Of course I assume as you do that all people involved in the effort do believe in the goal of the Wikimedia projects. But having talked about this with many chapter volunteers, they have also done it because as chapter volunteers, they feel even more responsible to make sure the donors were addressed in the right way. Pleasing a thousand donors (or 10 000) is a whole different ball game in terms of incentive as pleasing one big donor. My observation in how chapters have developped across the board is that you can grossly find two different kind of chapters: * those for whom fundransing and all the administration that goes with it is a hassle they don't want to get up entangled with * those for whom fundraising directly is a way to refine their local messaging (and hence activities that ensue), a motivation to do better (get organized and more professional, in all areas of a chapter's activities), take on responsibility and accountability (handling donors is difficult, but extremely rewarding as they come back the year after). Having followed closely the development of Wikimedia Germany for the past 5 years, I know for a fact that handling fundraising is a big part of the succesful growth of that chapter. Whatever path the chapters want to take (fundraising or no fundraising) is fine with me, for the record. I am convinced that doing your own fundraising is an essential part of organisational growth. Delphine -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Aug 9, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: Nor does off-wiki collaboration require that a formal entity be in existence. Off-wiki activities -- whether social meetups or more formal outreach efforts to GLAM institutions and elsewhere -- are no less effective for being organized by loose groups of interested participants. So long as there is no need to handle substantial funds -- and how much of Wikimedia contributors' typical work requires such? -- the lack of a legally constituted organization matters little. But to take this one step further, let us assume -- for the sake of argument -- that the activities of the contributor community _do_ require the existence of a dedicated legal entity in a particular jurisdiction. One could, potentially, construct a scenario where this is the case; for example, someone wishes to donate a set of copyrighted works, and prefers that an organization subject to local laws be responsible for handling the process. Even in this case, however, there is no requirement that the legal entity be a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation -- or, to be more precise, that the entity have in place a particular sort of trademark usage agreement with the WMF. I can think of no conceivable need that could be filled by a local entity holding rights to (non-commercial!) use of Wikimedia trademarks but could not be filled just as well by a local entity identical in every way save for the lack of such access to said trademarks. And just to add to the argument, the projects are divided by language, and not by jurisdiction. Whereas in many cases it may be unimportant (for instance, we can safely assume that most of the activbities of the Swedish chapter are more related to Swedish-language projects, and if there is any chapter which caters to Swedisg-language projects it is the Swedish chapter), this is not correct for most of the major languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian ...) You are quite right about the limitations of chapters. However, I don't see how these limiting factors are addressed by instead dealing with WMF directly. I think this is an example of perfect being the enemy of good enough. BirgitteSB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Chapters and some of their coolest activities
Hi all, this year I had the honour of presenting an overview of some of the Wikimedia Chapters' coolest and most interesting/inspiring activities. This is not only about big budget projects, but can also be meetups in a city. The video of my presentation should be up in a few days on youtube/commons (keep an eye on http://www.youtube.com/user/WikimediaIL, which will include all sessions' videos ) but the slides are already available through Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Chapters_-_Wikimania_2011.pdf - unfortunately Wikimedia Commons still doesn't accept any presentation format (.ppt, .pptx, .odp) so the layers within the slides are not visible. If you would like to see those too, just email me offlist and I'll send you the .odp I would like to encourage people to make any derivatives from it they think interesting. With kind regards, Lodewijk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:11:49 -0500, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: And just to add to the argument, the projects are divided by language, and not by jurisdiction. Whereas in many cases it may be unimportant (for instance, we can safely assume that most of the activbities of the Swedish chapter are more related to Swedish-language projects, and if there is any chapter which caters to Swedisg-language projects it is the Swedish chapter), this is not correct for most of the major languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian ...) You are quite right about the limitations of chapters. However, I don't see how these limiting factors are addressed by instead dealing with WMF directly. I think this is an example of perfect being the enemy of good enough. BirgitteSB Well, to give an example, I am perfectly fine with the recent WMF resolution on BLP and I am willing to comply. However, if such a resolution were issued by one of the chapters (for this matter it is irrelevant which chapter would do it) I would not feel myself in any way obliged to comply with such a resolution. No chapter has any jurisdiction over the Russian Wikipedia to which I used to contribute and over English Wikipedia to which I contribute now. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Aug 9, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything that does not maximize donations is laughable. The obvious solution to the stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually undesirable and should not be pursued. I don't see the concern as either unstated or undesirable. Why shouldn't the WMF lead the movement? Or, to put it another way, why should the WMF cede its leadership role to an amorphous collective of chapters, which -- unlike the WMF -- has no clear leadership, may or may not enjoy a suitable level of organizational maturity, and is subject to a hodgepodge of local legal systems which may or may not be friendly to the Wikimedia mission? The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent right to lead the movement. We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't. It is undesirable because it will not work. Whoever said chapters had an inherent right to lead the movement? Why must the movement be lead by any organization? Can the work not be simply supported by organizations while those on the ground take the lead in the program work? I don't think chapters are the greatest thing ever invented. I do think their most useful role is as a check against WMF going in the wrong direction. That people turned off by WMF might have another outlet besides abandoning the movement altogether. Without some real independence from WMF, I don't think chapters are really going to be very worthwhile. BirgitteSB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Indeed, chapters have no jurisdiction over the content of the projects whatsoever - and they dont want that either. I dont think any chapter would be crazy enough to actually draft such a resolution in any binding tone. It is true however that many chapters do important work for the local projects, and serve their local needs in the sense of activities, press contacts and fundraising in a more effective way (less culturally challanging, more sensitive to what works locally and better in touch with other activities and situations). Not all chapters do this in the same extent, and not all do it similarly good. But that is the idea of a chapter - it is not a fanclub organizing beer events only to have fun. Best regards, Lodewijk 2011/8/9 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:11:49 -0500, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: And just to add to the argument, the projects are divided by language, and not by jurisdiction. Whereas in many cases it may be unimportant (for instance, we can safely assume that most of the activbities of the Swedish chapter are more related to Swedish-language projects, and if there is any chapter which caters to Swedisg-language projects it is the Swedish chapter), this is not correct for most of the major languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian ...) You are quite right about the limitations of chapters. However, I don't see how these limiting factors are addressed by instead dealing with WMF directly. I think this is an example of perfect being the enemy of good enough. BirgitteSB Well, to give an example, I am perfectly fine with the recent WMF resolution on BLP and I am willing to comply. However, if such a resolution were issued by one of the chapters (for this matter it is irrelevant which chapter would do it) I would not feel myself in any way obliged to comply with such a resolution. No chapter has any jurisdiction over the Russian Wikipedia to which I used to contribute and over English Wikipedia to which I contribute now. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Funding chapters by grants from WMF so that they all use the money in the same WMF approved way is a systematically bad idea in the same way sending shoes to Africa is a bad idea. Redefining the chapters who participated in a joint fundraiser with WMF as WMF's payment processors is straight-up insulting. Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor. The other benefits are; * chapters can take advantage of local payment systems, which donors may be more accustomed to - not just credit cards * the chapter can probably make better subsequent use of the data on donors * if the chapter has a greater stake in the fundraiser, they are more likely to care about providing effective messages that work well So I simply do not accept that the right thing for the movement is for donations to be received by the Foundation and then passed on to the chapters. Chapters in my view have an important role to play in maximising the fundraising potential of the Wikimedia movement. Chris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
It is true however that many chapters do important work for the local projects, and serve their local needs in the sense of activities, press contacts and fundraising in a more effective way (less culturally challanging, more sensitive to what works locally and better in touch with other activities and situations). Not all chapters do this in the same extent, and not all do it similarly good. But that is the idea of a chapter - it is not a fanclub organizing beer events only to have fun. Best regards, Lodewijk Right, I know that the Chapters are doing some very useful stuff (in fact, I even want to help the Dutch chapter with the project on taking pictures of State Monuments - it would be very helpful if someone mails me offlist or indicates on my Wiki page if there is any information on what is needed), but I believe that to say, as Brigitte does, that the Chapters should lead the movement is to stretch it way over the limits. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The problem with Incubator: An interactive, journey
On 8/8/2011 6:24 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: fwiw, the Wikisource portal lists all languages, inc. the languages in the Wikisource incubator. http://www.wikisource.org/ That's actually a good shortcut and it appears amongst the Wikimedia buttons at the bottom of the all the root project pages. However - the average first time user may get lost before ever drilling in on these buttons. Perhaps a bunch of cross reference links are in order - *but* who is going to take the time to find all the references to my indigenous language/dialect and add these where needed? Is there a way to automate this process? (well yes, but it isn't that simple to write code that is comprehensive enough to do the job - that would spawn a new project) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
*in fact, I even want to help the Dutch chapter with the project on taking pictures of State Monuments - it would be very helpful if someone mails me offlist or indicates on my Wiki page if there is any information on what is needed * The Wiki page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 The Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesMonuments And the Website: http://wikilovesmonuments.eu But as you can see, is not only the Dutch people. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.* On 9 August 2011 16:48, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: It is true however that many chapters do important work for the local projects, and serve their local needs in the sense of activities, press contacts and fundraising in a more effective way (less culturally challanging, more sensitive to what works locally and better in touch with other activities and situations). Not all chapters do this in the same extent, and not all do it similarly good. But that is the idea of a chapter - it is not a fanclub organizing beer events only to have fun. Best regards, Lodewijk Right, I know that the Chapters are doing some very useful stuff (in fact, I even want to help the Dutch chapter with the project on taking pictures of State Monuments - it would be very helpful if someone mails me offlist or indicates on my Wiki page if there is any information on what is needed), but I believe that to say, as Brigitte does, that the Chapters should lead the movement is to stretch it way over the limits. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
The Wiki page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 The Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/WikiLovesMonuments And the Website: http://wikilovesmonuments.eu But as you can see, is not only the Dutch people. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 Thanks for the link, it is useful. I am not really interested in any contests and prizes (although I have several pictures of monuments no other Wikimedian has, but I better just upload them on Commons as soon as I have finished working on the images). I have previously heard that the Dutch Chapter has a map showing which monuments are needed to complete the creation of articles on all state monuments (Rijksmonumenten), but I could not easily locate it. May be your links would help. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 9 August 2011 16:36, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: So I simply do not accept that the right thing for the movement is for donations to be received by the Foundation and then passed on to the chapters. Chapters in my view have an important role to play in maximising the fundraising potential of the Wikimedia movement. John Vandenberg's numbers (which haven't been contradicted so far) show that pretty conclusively. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 9 August 2011 08:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with chapters? That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from their perspective, so recentralising fundraising. However it was the WMF that created that particular model of decentralisation in the first place. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 9 August 2011 18:29, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 08:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with chapters? That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from their perspective, so recentralising fundraising. However it was the WMF that created that particular model of decentralisation in the first place. This is begging the question: it presumes ownership. It also assumes that destroying that decentralisation is symmetrical with having first allowed and encouraged it, which is not in any way the case. The real problem with the present approach is - *even if* it's a correct thing for the trustees to do (once we're actually clear on what it is they're doing) - is: * Number of chapters people who've gone hey, great idea!: 0. * Number of chapters people who've gone you're pissing us about so badly we almost can't work with you: quite a lot. Being on the board of a tiny nonprofit is a thankless and grinding task at the best of times. Finding people who both want to do the job and are any good at all is *not easy*. This is a potentially catastrophic failure of volunteer liaison. If the aim were to get rid of chapters altogether, this would have been an excellent method of achieving it. (I don't think that is the intent - apparently WMF feels like it can mess people around and still get 100% from them. I do consider that the problems really haven't been considered.) Let me reiterate, this is still a really big problem even if this was a 100% defensible decision by the board. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Chapters
During these discussions we must keep in mind the laws of the countries involved. I am not a lawyer and thus will leave the specifics to the legal counsel of my chapter (Wikimedia Canada) and the WMF. But from my lay understanding a Canadian chapter is not allowed to just funnel tax deductible donations to an American entity. As a Canadian entity is the only one that is able to give tax deductions to Canadian donors the question is how much difference does this make. We are currently in the process of applying to the Canadian Revenue Agency to get charity status and will have a better understanding of how much difference this makes over the next couple of years. I agree that all within the movement need to be accountable for how money is spent to make sure that there is maximal benefit per dollar. I would be in agreement with the amount of money directly funneled to a chapter being related to how much benefit that chapter generates for the movement (local laws allowing this). If for example bringing tax deductability increases donation by 50% than monies should be split 50/50. If a chapter is not tax deductible there would be less restriction on financial agreements and I see less concerns with keeping finances more centralized (monies going to the WMF and grants being given to the chapters). -- James Heilman, MD, CCFP(EM) Wikipedian, Wikimedia Canada ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Chapters and some of their coolest activities
Thank you, Lodewijk -- this is awesome. On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Chapters_-_Wikimania_2011.pdf - unfortunately Wikimedia Commons still doesn't accept any presentation format (.ppt, .pptx, .odp) It would be awesome to remedy this. I added a comment here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:File_types SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
- Original Message - From: Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters It is true however that many chapters do important work for the local projects, and serve their local needs in the sense of activities, press contacts and fundraising in a more effective way (less culturally challanging, more sensitive to what works locally and better in touch with other activities and situations). Not all chapters do this in the same extent, and not all do it similarly good. But that is the idea of a chapter - it is not a fanclub organizing beer events only to have fun. Best regards, Lodewijk Right, I know that the Chapters are doing some very useful stuff (in fact, I even want to help the Dutch chapter with the project on taking pictures of State Monuments - it would be very helpful if someone mails me offlist or indicates on my Wiki page if there is any information on what is needed), but I believe that to say, as Brigitte does, that the Chapters should lead the movement is to stretch it way over the limits. It is not so much that I believe chapters should lead the movement as that I am certain WMF cannot successfully lead the movement. It seems to me that these changes are about making chapters more into franchises. Which I find to be exactly backwards. Chapters in my mind should be diverse entities. Embracing whatever is most effective in their little slice of the world. I think they should be ambitious in seeking out what inspires local population to embrace our movement. The way to encourage innovation is to push self-direction and refrain from being too judgmental so long as there is trending improvement. I believe that franchises will not be well received and will by and large fail. Maybe I am wrong about the direction people are pushing, maybe I am right about the direction but wrong about the poor outcome. I certainly can't have much of an effect on things. I have really tried to share the underlying basis that leads me to think this is a poor idea so people can consider the information and comes to their own conclusions. Although I know some of it is hard for me to articulate clearly. If you think my conclusion is stretches way over the limits I would like to understand which underlying concept I have drawn on is the poorest foundation. I sincerely would like to correct my understanding if I have the wrong idea or placed a disproportionate amount of importance on something. Really I am open to changing my opinion if someone has convincing information. BirgitteSB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters and replacing the Audit committee
A few points about Kyrill's statement, and a proposal. Firstly the idea that the work done by the chapters could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. Cost isn't everything, and I suspect the chapters are more likely to be able to adapt things to their local culture. But the WMF is sited in a high wage area by global standards, so I suspect that many chapters can do better especially where they have volunteers who speak the language and live in the culture. So even if cheapest turns out to be best, the WMF might not be the cheapest option as often as you think. Secondly The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor. Again this is something where decentralisation gives you an advantage. I'm aware that in the US the tax benefit accrues to the donor, and I can understand Kyrill's comment might make sense in such a tax regime (though I suspect it is still wrong, as I'd be truly astonished if we tested it and found there was no uplift on donations that were tax deductible). But here in the UK much of the tax advantage accrues to the charity, so it isn't just extra credibility with the donor, it is an extra 28% top up from the taxman to the charity. I don't know how other countries do this, but that is the glory of a decentralised system - we can rely on the local chapters to have such local knowledge. Also this rather misses the point that some funds are only available to charities. Thirdly The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent right to lead the movement. We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't. Decentralisation does not mean that any one particular chapter gets to lead the movement, or even that the chapters collectively get to lead the movement. Those who advocate decentralisation of power are not actually arguing that any particular chapter should lead the movement, after all that would just be centralisation with a different centre. Power does not necessarily have to be centralised, in a decentralised movement the WMF would almost certainly still have far more budget and influence than any individual chapter. One possible way to decentralise whilst maintaining or even improving fiscal accountability would be to replace the Audit committee with a group audit committee. I'm familiar with this model here in the UK in our not for profit housing sector - basically multiple organisations in the same group are audited by the same committee. To keep the committee to a manageable size you wouldn't have every chapter on it every year, and you would probably continue to have independents as now. But I would hope you'd avoid having a majority from any one continent let alone one country. Also as a matter of good governance there should be a separation of powers - none of our treasurers should serve on it without at least a break of a year since serving as a treasurer. WereSpielChequers Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor. A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would give a chapter the right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF. But what chapters seem to want is for the WMF to sign over the trademarks they need to do their own fundraising, and then simply hand over a portion of the WMF's own revenue on top of that. It's a convenient arrangement for the chapters involved, to be sure, and apparently one that the WMF was not particularly unwilling to follow; but there's nothing particularly normal or fair about it. Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything that does not maximize donations is laughable. The obvious solution to the stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing donations. The seemingly underlying and
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters and replacing the Audit committee
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: A few points about Kyrill's statement, and a proposal. Firstly the idea that the work done by the chapters could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. Cost isn't everything, and I suspect the chapters are more likely to be able to adapt things to their local culture. But the WMF is sited in a high wage area by global standards, so I suspect that many chapters can do better especially where they have volunteers who speak the language and live in the culture. So even if cheapest turns out to be best, the WMF might not be the cheapest option as often as you think. Secondly The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor. Again this is something where decentralisation gives you an advantage. I'm aware that in the US the tax benefit accrues to the donor, and I can understand Kyrill's comment might make sense in such a tax regime (though I suspect it is still wrong, as I'd be truly astonished if we tested it and found there was no uplift on donations that were tax deductible). But here in the UK much of the tax advantage accrues to the charity, so it isn't just extra credibility with the donor, it is an extra 28% top up from the taxman to the charity. I don't know how other countries do this, but that is the glory of a decentralised system - we can rely on the local chapters to have such local knowledge. Also this rather misses the point that some funds are only available to charities. Thirdly The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent right to lead the movement. We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't. Decentralisation does not mean that any one particular chapter gets to lead the movement, or even that the chapters collectively get to lead the movement. Those who advocate decentralisation of power are not actually arguing that any particular chapter should lead the movement, after all that would just be centralisation with a different centre. Power does not necessarily have to be centralised, in a decentralised movement the WMF would almost certainly still have far more budget and influence than any individual chapter. One possible way to decentralise whilst maintaining or even improving fiscal accountability would be to replace the Audit committee with a group audit committee. I'm familiar with this model here in the UK in our not for profit housing sector - basically multiple organisations in the same group are audited by the same committee. To keep the committee to a manageable size you wouldn't have every chapter on it every year, and you would probably continue to have independents as now. But I would hope you'd avoid having a majority from any one continent let alone one country. Also as a matter of good governance there should be a separation of powers - none of our treasurers should serve on it without at least a break of a year since serving as a treasurer. WereSpielChequers I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the WMF has much of a choice about having an Audit Committee of the board, nor would they be able to cede authority for such a function to an outside entity. This means that the board has to retain effective oversight over the operations and spending of the WMF, including the fundraiser, the channeling of funds to chapters, and the affiliates themselves. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Like button
Thinking loudly: I think that something like like button for edits would give more reasons to continue with editing. Those who like would have to go to diffs, which would leave the button to more engaged editors and thus almost strictly internal community issue. Could be discussed more about options and technical implementation. Thoughts? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 video on Commons?
Dear all, Are the Wikimania 2011 video on YouTube aviliable on Wikimedia Commons? Where is the link? Thanks. HW@zhwp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Like button
I don't understand why we need a Like button at all; it's open to personal interpretation and therefore can be in contravention of many policies, particularly NPOV. It's a bad idea, and should be strangled at birth. Feedback is much more sensibly achieved through more subtle means. Milos Rancic wrote: Thinking loudly: I think that something like like button for edits would give more reasons to continue with editing. Those who like would have to go to diffs, which would leave the button to more engaged editors and thus almost strictly internal community issue. Could be discussed more about options and technical implementation. Thoughts? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Like button
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:02, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: I don't understand why we need a Like button at all; it's open to personal interpretation and therefore can be in contravention of many policies, particularly NPOV. It's a bad idea, and should be strangled at birth. Feedback is much more sensibly achieved through more subtle means. That would be a kind of personal appreciation, like there are many personal things at user talk pages. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Most reputable translators of literary texts do not aim at a literal translation, but one that replicate the meaning, the emotional affect as far as possible, and ideally some of the linguistic subtleties. Even in translating prose texts, a literal translation is usually not produced unless it is for some reason specifically wanted, because a literal translation will normally not convey the same meaning exactly as the original. Once you start looking for equivalent idioms, and a natural way of saying things in the target language, there is always room for interpretation. Consider the Bible: the only way of citing it accurately is to give a range of translations, along with the original. Very few of the materials we use for quotations will have good translations, now or ever. The purpose of giving the original along with whatever we can manage as a translation is first, that if the original is given , others may find or write a better translation; second, so those who know a little of the source language can see for themselves. We write the enWP for English readers--not providing some sort of a translation leaves 90% of them helpless in any particular case. I think of the 18th century writers like Gibbon who left the sexual parts in the decent obscurity of a learned language , with the intended effect that the gentlemen could read them, but not the ladies (very few of whom were ever taught Latin at the time) and certainly not any of the common people who might happen to see a serious book. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon be, a verifiable English language translation *not* created in-project, but rather by a reputable author publishing just such a translation. -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters and replacing the Audit committee
On 8/9/2011 1:43 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: One possible way to decentralise whilst maintaining or even improving fiscal accountability would be to replace the Audit committee with a group audit committee. I'm familiar with this model here in the UK in our not for profit housing sector - basically multiple organisations in the same group are audited by the same committee. To keep the committee to a manageable size you wouldn't have every chapter on it every year, and you would probably continue to have independents as now. But I would hope you'd avoid having a majority from any one continent let alone one country. Also as a matter of good governance there should be a separation of powers - none of our treasurers should serve on it without at least a break of a year since serving as a treasurer. If you're talking about overseeing a financial audit process, I doubt that a group audit committee would be at all efficient, because of the need to comply with requirements that vary in detail from one jurisdiction to the next. If you're talking about an audit committee to monitor risk factors more generally, then the existing audit committee already takes it as being part of its mandate to study risks for the movement as a whole. For example, see http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Top_risks_2009 As to the idea of decentralization, I'm having trouble seeing why this suggestion would be the place to start. I don't know if it's a meaningful difference in function, so I'm skeptical as to what the proposal would accomplish. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: It is not so much that I believe chapters should lead the movement as that I am certain WMF cannot successfully lead the movement. It seems to me that these changes are about making chapters more into franchises. Which I find to be exactly backwards. Chapters in my mind should be diverse entities. Embracing whatever is most effective in their little slice of the world. I think they should be ambitious in seeking out what inspires local population to embrace our movement. The way to encourage innovation is to push self-direction and refrain from being too judgmental so long as there is trending improvement. I believe that franchises will not be well received and will by and large fail. Maybe I am wrong about the direction people are pushing, maybe I am right about the direction but wrong about the poor outcome. I certainly can't have much of an effect on things. I have really tried to share the underlying basis that leads me to think this is a poor idea so people can consider the information and comes to their own conclusions. Although I know some of it is hard for me to articulate clearly. If you think my conclusion is stretches way over the limits I would like to understand which underlying concept I have drawn on is the poorest foundation. I sincerely would like to correct my understanding if I have the wrong idea or placed a disproportionate amount of importance on something. Really I am open to changing my opinion if someone has convincing information. BirgitteSB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I completely understood your point, BirgitteSB. The title of chapters has always brought your ideal to my mind. I don't hold a personal opinion on chapters since I don't participate in that aspect of Wikimedia, but it is best expressed why chapters come to my mind: the American fraternity system for Universities. pause to let a few that have met me in person and have had this conversation roll their eyes /pause The idea is that a fraternity is started by a local group. They have friends and equaintances that go to other schools and may want to start their own chapter. If it is successful, now there is collective governance needed by a Grand Chapter. Eventually the Grand Chapter, if the fraternity is successful in expanding, falls into the roll of legal council, broad policy development, copyrights, educational material, etc. The manner of the finance model gets interesting. Local chapters exist to serve the ideals locally, and also to promote the grand cause. Most all financing comes from member dues, a fraction of which go to the GC, and support operations. They develop local policy, file for relevant incorporation and tax status, and respond with audits and reports to the GC. Statistically, very very few chapters have substantial endowments. The Grand Chapter lives off of major gifts, endowments, and annual fundraising. Similar to the WMF in the early days (neigh on two years ago), you can name most of the office staff off the top of your head if you're in a leadership position. The power behind the fundraising model is that most of the serious, committed donors, would give to the GC instead of their local chapter. Why? Because they probably know how the local chapter spends its money relative to the principles of spreading the fraternity. They still give to their chapter, but they're not going to toss it $25,000 USD. Based on the model you desire, Birgitte, my ultimate question is how many chapters can sell me how and why they should operate with, say, 80% of funds raised in retention? It needs to be a central focus for chapters to be able to answer this question if they wish to be the grassroots, autonomous driving force that they have the potential to be. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Note about Huib and LangCom
One of his tasks is archiving. Since archiving is done 'on Meta', how can he archive while blocked? Concerning that his activities are not urgent to deserve immediate response, why can't he request a non-blocked member of LangCom to perform desired actions on Meta? Teles http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teles From: mill...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 18:13:17 +0200 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Note about Huib and LangCom While Huib has been blocked on Meta, he is still member of LangCom, as he has never made anything wrong in relation to his work as LangCom member. Thus, if he asks something on IRC or wherever in relation to his LangCom duties, please consider his requests as you would do if the request has been made by any other LangCom member. (His requests are presently usually related to handling proposals for closing projects and the fact that he is not able to edit Meta presently.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Note about Huib and LangCom
Hoi, Because nobody else is interested in doing this. He is a full member of the language committee he does import data from Incubator into new projects. It is known that he has been framed multiple times and it is proven conclusively for the last time when this was attempted For more information: http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/08/sterkebak-does-good-work-and-wants-to.html Thanks, GerardM On 10 August 2011 07:45, Lucas Teles salvadore...@hotmail.com wrote: One of his tasks is archiving. Since archiving is done 'on Meta', how can he archive while blocked? Concerning that his activities are not urgent to deserve immediate response, why can't he request a non-blocked member of LangCom to perform desired actions on Meta? Teles http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teles From: mill...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 18:13:17 +0200 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Note about Huib and LangCom While Huib has been blocked on Meta, he is still member of LangCom, as he has never made anything wrong in relation to his work as LangCom member. Thus, if he asks something on IRC or wherever in relation to his LangCom duties, please consider his requests as you would do if the request has been made by any other LangCom member. (His requests are presently usually related to handling proposals for closing projects and the fact that he is not able to edit Meta presently.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
